9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002-CE dated 14.11.2002, they were availing the exemption under this notification. During the period of dispute, they were paying duty on the clearances made by them on FOR destination basis i.e. on the price which included the element of freight from the factory to the customer's premises and after payment of duty to extent possible through cenvat credit available at the end of each month, they paid the balance duty through PLA and claimed its refund under the above mentioned notification. The department was of the view that the clearances of the appellant were not on FOR destination basis and that they were required to pay duty only on the price of the goods at the factory gate, that by paying much more duty than they were required to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under notification no.56/2002-CE claimed by them. But if the sales cannot be treated as on FOR destination basis in the terms of the above mentioned criteria prescribed, they would not be eligible for the refund of the disputed amount under notification no.56/2002-CE. In de novo proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals), has once again held that their sales are not on FOR destination basis. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Though today the matters were listed for hearing of the stay applications since only a short issue is involved, the same was heard for final disposal with the consent of both the sides. 4. Shri P.K. Nayyar, Consultant and Ms. Surabhi Sinha, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly one consolidated FOR price and also mention that the sales are on FOR destination basis. This fact is not disputed by the department. When the invoices themselves mention the sales as on FOR sales, risk of loss of goods or damage to the goods during transit would be of the appellant and the ownership of the goods during transit would be treated as of the appellant and if the Department alleges that the sales are not as FOR basis, the burden of proof in this regard would be on the Department. Just because there are no purchase orders placed by the customers or there are no agreements between the appellant and their customers regarding sale of the goods and the terms of sale, it cannot be concluded that the sales are not on FOR destinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
